https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52551 The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal setting aside the order-in-original. The Assistant Commissioner held that the exemption was available only for goods covered in the notification and not for goods like locks, steel furniture, and parts thereof. The appellate authority allowed the benefit of exemption based on the CT-3 certificate, which was deemed erroneous by the Revenue. The Member found substance in the Commissioner's submissions, emphasizing the manufacturer's duty payment obligation even if goods were removed based on a CT-3 certificate not eligible for exemption. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to verify duty payment by recipients. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:54:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52551 The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal setting aside the order-in-original. The Assistant Commissioner held that the exemption was available only for goods covered in the notification and not for goods like locks, steel furniture, and parts thereof. The appellate authority allowed the benefit of exemption based on the CT-3 certificate, which was deemed erroneous by the Revenue. The Member found substance in the Commissioner's submissions, emphasizing the manufacturer's duty payment obligation even if goods were removed based on a CT-3 certificate not eligible for exemption. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to verify duty payment by recipients. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52551